we use fifty years of data and modern econometric methods to provide an estimate of the relationship between government spending on regulatory activity and economic growth and job recovery. We estimate that reducing the size of the regulatory bureaucracy may grow the economy and invigorate the labor market. Even a small 5% reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) is estimated to result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs.Someone is insane. I am not certain whether it's the authors of the paper, or the folks in government, but the numbers boggle. Can anyone provide further analysis of the insanity?
Virginia Postrel has, historically, pointed out the W was nowhere near as bad a socialist as anyone with a brain thought him to be...because of the importance of the reguatory sphere. Since W kept regulation growing slower than any other president in recent memory...even his socialist policies (NCLB, Drugs for bribing seniors, etc.) were relatively unimportant. Regulation, and reining in the regulators was, according to her, the big deal.
Posts
9 comments:
I've suggested an experiment in the past. In the regulatory codes, there are a ton of constants, usually of the form that ---this regulation applies to any employer with more than N employees. Take all those N's and double them. If on balance, we like the outcomes, I suggest indexing them to population growth.
I suggest indexing them to something that grows faster than population.
I run across such insane numbers repeatedly and from several angles whenever the costs of government are calculated.
However, there are also many countervailing factors, resulting in diminishing returns.
Removing the marginal bureaucrat does, in fact, create a couple hundred private sector jobs.
Removing every bureaucrat would first put limits on available capital; there simply isn't enough spare stuff lying around to create half a billion jobs.
Second, there aren't half a billion unemployed to take the jobs.
So as you lustrate bureaucrats, you bid up the cost of labour and capital until a reasonable equilibrium is reached.
However, noting that the starting point is so high, even with severe diminishing returns - the conservative estimate - you end up with stupendous numbers.
Similarly, the marginal tax dollar costs the consumer about four dollars. However, I suspect that abolishing government wouldn't amount to giving you three extra paycheques. (Except at first when prices move and wages stick.) Ironically, I suspect my simplified estimate as linked is about right; you'd become roughly two and a half times richer, and then have to pay the security insurance, medical insurance, charity, etc. out of that.
Here, the countervails are first that governments occasionally pay for real stuff, (and thus you) which mitigates the tax rape. (Keynes isn't totally wrong; cf. Hegel.) Second, cash would get bid down in this case, as a lot more of it is chasing real stuff. Presumably there's a third and so on.
There are some walking among us who rate equality higher than economic advancement, and regulation is a pretty good way to bring down those running ahead in the acquisition race.
Good point.
Especially if by 'some' you mean 'to first-order approximation everybody.'
Sorry for the double, by the way.
Is regulation a good way to bring down those running ahead in the acquisition race?
Or is a good way to ensure that those who determine the regulations are the ones who will win the acquisition race?
Let us look at history to see which effect dominates.
I'd rather just let them run ahead.
I advocate measuring your self-worth by important things, which cashes out to be basically your personal relationships. No amount of cash or other stuff can make you a better friend.
Envy primarily people who have better relationships, not who have more money.
Especially important is your relationship with yourself. Bill Gates loathes himself. I guarantee it. Microsoft is literally Gates' attempt to earn his own respect, and he was driven to such heights because it didn't work. It didn't work because, if you think about it, it can't possibly work. But, since he didn't think of an alternative, he tries the thing he's got but harder.
On the plus side, I get PCs.
Until, now, we have a charity foundation. It also won't work. Because Gates' self-hatred isn't about that. Since he refuses to own up to his self-hatred, he can't figure out why he hates himself, which means he can't ever address it. He will die hating himself.
So let them run ahead, as far as I'm concerned...as long as it isn't considered legitimate for them to interfere with my relationships.
So, in a completely unrelated aside, are you still thinking that Rick Perry has the nomination in the bag?
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-rick-perry-oops-2011-11
Post a Comment